RAVAL SHIVABHAI MOHANBHAI Vs. DDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R.Mehul Sharad Shah, for the petitioner and Mr.Amit Panchal, for the respondent. Rule. Mr.Amit Panchal waives services of rule. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) . The present petition is filed by the petitioner for not considering the two representations made by the petitioner, one in the month of February, 1997 and another in the month of January, 1998. By these two representations the petitioner had prayed for that after the petitioner came to be reinstated on 7.10.96, the authority ought to have passed an order treating the petitioner on duty during the period of suspension i.e. 9.4.1991 to 7.10.1996. Mr.Shah, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that an FIR was filed on 7.2.1999 and order of suspension came to be passed on 6.4.1991 but the same was received on 9.4.1991 and from that date the petitioner was under suspension till 7.10.96. Pursuant to the FIR, criminal proceedings were initiated and during the pendency of the criminal proceedings the department decided to reinstate the petitioner by an order dated 7.10.1996. The criminal proceedings which were pending against the petitioner resulted in an acquittal by a judgment and order dated 30.1.1997. Mr.Shah submitted that the department has not held any departmental inquiry against the petitioner. However, a Criminal Appeal being No.237/97 is filed before this court and the same is pending for final disposal. Mr.Shah submitted that as the petitioner was reinstated in 1996 and that to prior to the completion of the criminal trial, the authority ought to have decided to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner as period spend on duty. But in spite of petitioner filing two representations mentioned hereinabove the authority did not decide to do so and therefore the present petition is filed. The petitioner prays that a direction should be issued to the respondent to grant the petitioner all the consequential benefit including the payment of salary and allowance for the period of suspension i.e. from 9.4.1991 to 7.10.1996.

(3.) Mr.Amit Panchal, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the facts of the present case are identical to that of a case which was considered by a division bench of this Hon'ble Court. Mr.Amit Panchal places reliance upon a judgment and order in Letters Patent Appeal No.1681/99 in Spl.C.A. No.9527/99 (Coram Acting CJ Mr.C.K.Thakkar and Mr.D.P.Buch,J ) dated 13.12.1999. The facts of that case are set out in para 3 which reads as under :-